I am using this in a simple containerized environment https://github.com/patrickziegler/letter (for reducing the amount of packages to update in my rolling release base system), it comes with the the added benefit of allowing me to put my documents under proper version control :)
I think LaTeX set out to be a decent typesetter (in the sense if the profession) for books.
With human typesetting already becoming a rare profession LaTeX turned out to be the better typesetter for almost everyone in the 90s. Also InDesign came along and fulfilled that promise well for the other half of the market that had money but no inclination to work the WYSIWYM way. This lead to LaTeX' big success in the academic world.
I think typst can't hold a candle to any of the two when it comes to the previous flagship
discipline of setting narrow columns of fully justified and hyphenated[1] text utilizing microtypography to equalize the grey value.
I do not know what the plans for typst are, but I think it will
have a niche even if it will
never come to par with LaTeX and InDesign.
Their capabilities are a thing for old style physical books and not even for what we call books now.
Full justification is as dead as narrow columns and hyphenation. 30 years of web changed our reading habits. What we think of books now is mostly meant to be readable on a screen.
I also think scientific papers should adapt to that fact. Of course without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Being able to share papers as self-contained files is a big plus and high quality math typesetting is a must.
Columnar and fully justified serif text on the other hand is just baggage.
If typst can be the accessible tool for scientific publication that'd be fantastic. If it gains enough legacy features to
replace LaTeX completely even better.
[1] Especially when it comes to languages with long words and complicated hyphenation rules like German.
P.S. Unironically always enjoyed TeX and LaTeX. Enjoy typst too, just not as a full (La)TeX replacement (yet).
Do you think it is sufficiently respectful of TeX/LaTeX?
As far as proponents go, I will echo the sentiments of many people who have actually used both TeX and Typst: I have been able to accomplish many things in Typst within an hour or two by writing my own Typst code, that in LaTeX I could only accomplish after several days by cargo-culting indecipherable gibberish from years-old forum posts. I freely admit Typst can't (yet) match LaTeX's long-tail package ecosystem, but it is much more pleasant to use and easier to reason about.
You're right, people submitting for academic publications will still need to use LaTeX until those institutions change their practices.
If that group comprises the vast majority of people who might have a use for a programmatic typesetting environment, and if the use of LaTeX by academic institutions represents current, expert insight about LaTeX's continued superiority and not simply organizational inertia, then Typst is irrelevant and pointless.
What about my of decades worth of snippets, custom commands, templates for all the journals, my bib files, and of course my published works that I borrow pieces from? I should replace that with something nonfree that I have to learn from scratch? Howabout you do you?
Does typst support the standard Tex math notation? I understand that a lot of effort went into doing math different - and probably better - than Tex, but I'm just very used to the Tex notation.
It doesn't, which IMO was a stupid decision. TeX math notation isn't even that bad, and making Typst compatible with it would've gone a long way towards adoption. It's currently unusable for me because in order to actually use it for something I need to first find time to re-learn everything.
Strict to the extent that they actually expect latex, not just something that looks like latex. So unless typst is willing to output latex, which they are not, it will never work.
no the depth of graphics API's in latex is really something, and an area that is underdeveloped in typst. it'll take a considerable time for typst to be on par.
The compiler is FOSS under a permissive license Apache 2.0). Only the online editor, similar to Overleaf, is not Open Source. Please check the facts before hitting reply.
no, I pointed towards the joy of writing in a proper IDE.
but to your point: overleaf is a key enabler of latex and its cool to see typst offers a similar route
Readit News
no going back once you experience realtime rendering of your document, and support in VS Code is stellar IMO.
[1] http://typst.app
I think typst can't hold a candle to any of the two when it comes to the previous flagship discipline of setting narrow columns of fully justified and hyphenated[1] text utilizing microtypography to equalize the grey value.
I do not know what the plans for typst are, but I think it will have a niche even if it will never come to par with LaTeX and InDesign.
Their capabilities are a thing for old style physical books and not even for what we call books now. Full justification is as dead as narrow columns and hyphenation. 30 years of web changed our reading habits. What we think of books now is mostly meant to be readable on a screen.
I also think scientific papers should adapt to that fact. Of course without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Being able to share papers as self-contained files is a big plus and high quality math typesetting is a must. Columnar and fully justified serif text on the other hand is just baggage.
If typst can be the accessible tool for scientific publication that'd be fantastic. If it gains enough legacy features to replace LaTeX completely even better.
[1] Especially when it comes to languages with long words and complicated hyphenation rules like German.
P.S. Unironically always enjoyed TeX and LaTeX. Enjoy typst too, just not as a full (La)TeX replacement (yet).
I've only heard Knuth and Lamport speak respectfully about the technologies that came before tex and latex.
Do you think it is sufficiently respectful of TeX/LaTeX?
As far as proponents go, I will echo the sentiments of many people who have actually used both TeX and Typst: I have been able to accomplish many things in Typst within an hour or two by writing my own Typst code, that in LaTeX I could only accomplish after several days by cargo-culting indecipherable gibberish from years-old forum posts. I freely admit Typst can't (yet) match LaTeX's long-tail package ecosystem, but it is much more pleasant to use and easier to reason about.
Deleted Comment
If that group comprises the vast majority of people who might have a use for a programmatic typesetting environment, and if the use of LaTeX by academic institutions represents current, expert insight about LaTeX's continued superiority and not simply organizational inertia, then Typst is irrelevant and pointless.
Big "if"s, though.
Deleted Comment
So it isn't like that is something widely impressive.
better than
> sign up for free
enshitification